Is being NT the same as being masculine?

[Nasi Lemak]

Most ntfags I know talk in a very masculine way. Unlike incels or faggots they don’t have any self-deprecating or self-pitying in their speech.

 

[IAMNOTANINCEL]

Women and homosexuals are the most nt people on the planet

 

[Primalsplit]

No shit Sherlock. Of course being more manlike is more normal for a man.

 

[incel194012940]

Yes compared to forum dweller failed creatures but truly masculine men talk little, do so in deep confident voice and have a physically intimidating aura (height/size doesn’t matter)

The most “NT” people average around 5’8 in height and have androgynous energy

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Its quite the opposite actually. In short, yes but no.

When people say Nt they mean nuerotypical. When people say non NT they mean non neurotypical.

Its confusing in todays time as the word masculinity (which is commonly defined from a neurotypical perspective, by a neurotypical party) is a nuerotypical concept in itself.

Generally, what we refer to as “non neurotypical behaviors” is a trait that the masculinized body excells in.

Not saying a woman cannot be non neurotypical mentally, but from observation i can see that the estrogren influenced nature has a sort of social dependency.. It is literally what defines being neurotypical, as a typical anything is truly impossible to achive, but instead a socital product/categorization of structure. This is why thinking the same, trends, memes, social orders etc are considered NT while things that fall outside of that are considered non nt.

So i say yes but no because it depends what your catagorizing masculinity to be. If were talking from a closer “source level” definition, (femininity being comfort/yin and masculinity being discomfort/yang concepts), then no. masculinity would actually be catagorized under “nonnt”, and femininity under “nt”.
This is very vauge also as whether the definitions hold is reliant on the word “typical”. Defining it socially means we can catagorize “typical” with synonyms of social comfort, which again align more to that yin/female concept.

But if your catagorizing masculinity under the carnal definition (low inhib,muscular,cutthroat,large). Then it can become NT as the whole categorization of that version of masculinity becomes more of a societal preference.

 

[autismmaxxer]

Women and homosexuals are the most nt people on the planet

all your takes I have seen on this site have been high iq also you have a bladee profile picture you have potential to become a very good user bro keep it up

 

[IAMNOTANINCEL]

all your takes I have seen on this site have been high iq also you have a bladee profile picture you have potential to become a very good user bro keep it up

thanks bhai i love you too

 

[Icon]

Women and homosexuals are the most nt people on the planet

Over for heterocels

 

[Deleted member 23115]

Its quite the opposite actually. In short, yes but no.

When people say Nt they mean nuerotypical. When people say non NT they mean non neurotypical.

Its confusing in todays time as the word masculinity (which is commonly defined from a neurotypical perspective, by a neurotypical party) is a nuerotypical concept in itself.

Generally, what we refer to as “non neurotypical behaviors” is a trait that the masculinized body excells in.

Not saying a woman cannot be non neurotypical mentally, but from observation i can see that the estrogren influenced nature has a sort of social dependency.. It is literally what defines being neurotypical, as a typical anything is truly impossible to achive, but instead a socital product/categorization of structure. This is why thinking the same, trends, memes, social orders etc are considered NT while things that fall outside of that are considered non nt.

So i say yes but no because it depends what your catagorizing masculinity to be. If were talking from a closer “source level” definition, (femininity being comfort/yin and masculinity being discomfort/yang concepts), then no. masculinity would actually be catagorized under “nonnt”, and femininity under “nt”.
This is very vauge also as whether the definitions hold is reliant on the word “typical”. Defining it socially means we can catagorize “typical” with synonyms of social comfort, which again align more to that yin/female concept.

But if your catagorizing masculinity under the carnal definition (low inhib,muscular,cutthroat,large). Then it can become NT as the whole categorization of that version of masculinity becomes more of a societal preference.

i like your posts but i dont have the attention span to fully appreciate your posts

 

[Icon]

Its quite the opposite actually. In short, yes but no.

When people say Nt they mean nuerotypical. When people say non NT they mean non neurotypical.

Its confusing in todays time as the word masculinity (which is commonly defined from a neurotypical perspective, by a neurotypical party) is a nuerotypical concept in itself.

Generally, what we refer to as “non neurotypical behaviors” is a trait that the masculinized body excells in.

Not saying a woman cannot be non neurotypical mentally, but from observation i can see that the estrogren influenced nature has a sort of social dependency.. It is literally what defines being neurotypical, as a typical anything is truly impossible to achive, but instead a socital product/categorization of structure. This is why thinking the same, trends, memes, social orders etc are considered NT while things that fall outside of that are considered non nt.

So i say yes but no because it depends what your catagorizing masculinity to be. If were talking from a closer “source level” definition, (femininity being comfort/yin and masculinity being discomfort/yang concepts), then no. masculinity would actually be catagorized under “nonnt”, and femininity under “nt”.
This is very vauge also as whether the definitions hold is reliant on the word “typical”. Defining it socially means we can catagorize “typical” with synonyms of social comfort, which again align more to that yin/female concept.

But if your catagorizing masculinity under the carnal definition (low inhib,muscular,cutthroat,large). Then it can become NT as the whole categorization of that version of masculinity becomes more of a societal preference.

Don't talk like this irl too autistic. But a very engaging post